- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Federal Judge in Texas strikes DOWN ObamaCare
Posted on 12/14/18 at 10:47 pm to tiggerthetooth
Posted on 12/14/18 at 10:47 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:The only problem is the "middle class" want's to join the do nothings and not pay.
Middle class struggles to pay for their insurance, the do nothings get free dirt cheap insurance.
I've said it before... there is no way to give away trillions in "free" care and make it affordable to those paying for it.
1
Posted on 12/14/18 at 11:22 pm to rds dc
quote:
The judge ruled that the law's individual mandate is unconstitutional
I'm confused. Didn't SCOTUS already rule it was constitutional with Roberts being the swing vote?
Posted on 12/14/18 at 11:29 pm to AUstar
Roberts or Kavanaugh will cuck out on this one and find some new mealy mouthed middle ground to keep Obamacare. Book it, unfortunately......
Posted on 12/14/18 at 11:40 pm to Mr.Perfect
Fk you buddy, you aren't sweat off Mccain's balls.
Posted on 12/14/18 at 11:43 pm to rds dc
Activist judges 
Posted on 12/15/18 at 7:24 am to rds dc
Wonder if I can get my “tax” money back that I paid into this shitshow?
Posted on 12/15/18 at 7:29 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
there is no way to give away trillions in "free" care and make it affordable to those paying for it.
I don't understand why people can't grasp this.
The amount of rationing that this would require would turn bamasjw, hero Hank, BMY and juice fairy into conservatives.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 9:24 am to Sentrius
quote:
The 9th circuit will have something to say about this
What's funny about this is that the fact this case is in the 5th Circuit probably won't stop the 9th from trying to do something.
THIS was the long play in getting rid of the tax penalty for not getting insurance.
Guts Roberts' rationale for his ruling.
And there is no severability clause by design. Dems knew the law would collapse if any part was struck and figured judges would never toss the whole law.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 9:39 am to GeneralLee
quote:
Roberts or Kavanaugh will cuck out on this one and find some new mealy mouthed middle ground to keep Obamacare. Book it, unfortunately......
This will be EXTREMELY difficult in light of the Sebelius ruling. Even the majority essentially conceded that but for the "tax" nature of the law, its constitutionality was very much in doubt. It was a very sweeping decision as to the limits of the Commerce Clause and this was an issue that the dissent and most of the majority agreed. The absence of a severability clause was also noted in the original decision.
Considering Roberts' stated desire for the Court to not render "political" decisions in response to this very ruling, he is really in a box.
This post was edited on 12/15/18 at 10:19 am
Posted on 12/15/18 at 9:50 am to udtiger
quote:
And there is no severability clause by design.
true, but courts have been known to conjure them up out of thin air
I think that this is what weasel Roberts will do. He will agree that the individual mandate is struck but all of the other requirements, like preexisting conditions, stay intact.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 9:57 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I think that this is what weasel Roberts will do. He will agree that the individual mandate is struck but all of the other requirements, like preexisting conditions, stay intact
I think that will be a problem for a number of reasons:
a) on what basis? Remember, there was a substantial majority of the Court that said the law did not pass muster under the Commerce Clause. With the tax gone, there is not constitutional basis for the law.
b) recall that Roberts essentially said that it was up to the people, not the Court, to address the wisdom of the law by electing members of Congress to address it (the whole trying to avoid "politization" of the Court). Well...they did. The Congress passed a law that knocked the constitutional legs out from under the law.
Not to say it won't happen because frick D.C., but if Roberts saves the law again, he may as well resign because he will have completely abandoned everything he said in 2012.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 10:02 am to udtiger
quote:
he will have completely abandoned everything he said in 2012.
Yes, he will have to go back on his own ruling in his own words to keep Obamacare alive.
I just don't trust him enough to think that he won't.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 10:14 am to Sentrius
quote:
The 9th circuit will have something to say about this
I don’t remember anyone calling for the 9th circuit when California judges were making rulings about the border.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 10:30 am to TrueTiger
True Tiger
It has been a while since I read the opinion by Roberts but I read it twice the day it came out and probably 5 more times after that. Roberts used the "may" in his opinion, if I recall.
Wouldn't this give the executive branch authority to claim that they do not see it as a tax? What is the use of the word "may" in the legal world? In the engineering world, it simply gives permission for something to be viewed in a certain way.
It has been a while since I read the opinion by Roberts but I read it twice the day it came out and probably 5 more times after that. Roberts used the "may" in his opinion, if I recall.
Wouldn't this give the executive branch authority to claim that they do not see it as a tax? What is the use of the word "may" in the legal world? In the engineering world, it simply gives permission for something to be viewed in a certain way.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 10:34 am to Pioneer BS 175
quote:
Wonder if I can get my “tax” money back that I paid into this shitshow?
No shite!
Posted on 12/15/18 at 10:35 am to 2 Jugs
quote:
It has been a while since I read the opinion by Roberts but I read it twice the day it came out and probably 5 more times after that. Roberts used the "may" in his opinion, if I recall.
Wouldn't this give the executive branch authority to claim that they do not see it as a tax? What is the use of the word "may" in the legal world? In the engineering world, it simply gives permission for something to be viewed in a certain way
I know this isn't directed at me, but this was directed to the fact Obama's administration argued at the district court and appellate court that it was NOT a tax. During briefing, it became pretty damned clear that the law would would not survive if it was not a tax so the Admin did a 180 and started calling it a tax.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 10:45 am to Sentrius
quote:
Good thing Congress already eliminated the mandate in the tax reform bill then.
No they didn’t. They removed the penalty.
By removing the penalty (tax), they removed the justification for calling the overall bill a tax.
Roberts opinion needs to be revisited. The entire basis for it has been removed from the ACA.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 10:46 am to udtiger
That is correct. In Roberts' opinion, he first claimed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional because it was a penalty and could not be severed from the entire law. But to save it, he claimed that since congress had the power to tax, and even though the government argued it was not a tax, then the individual mandate "may" be seen as a tax.
The opinion covered 4 different aspects in regards to the law.
1. Is the individual mandate a tax or a penalty?
2. If it is a penalty, can it be severed from the rest of the law?
3. Is the forced Medicaid expansion constitutional?
4. can't remember
Roberts stated in his opinion that the individual mandate was a penalty and in fact, nowhere in the law is it called a tax. But since he wanted to save the law, he gave the executive permission to see the individual mandate as a tax.
My question is can the executive simply say that they do not view it as a tax?
The opinion covered 4 different aspects in regards to the law.
1. Is the individual mandate a tax or a penalty?
2. If it is a penalty, can it be severed from the rest of the law?
3. Is the forced Medicaid expansion constitutional?
4. can't remember
Roberts stated in his opinion that the individual mandate was a penalty and in fact, nowhere in the law is it called a tax. But since he wanted to save the law, he gave the executive permission to see the individual mandate as a tax.
My question is can the executive simply say that they do not view it as a tax?
Posted on 12/15/18 at 10:47 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
Did they remove the penalty or set it to $0?
Posted on 12/15/18 at 10:51 am to 2 Jugs
quote:
My question is can the executive simply say that they do not view it as a tax?
Arguably, yes.
But the vagaries of the executive and being subject to change would give the Court (Roberts) the opening to uphold it even if Trump said it wasn't. That's why the statutory elimination of the penalty is so important. It eliminates the uncertainty and "fixes" the issue.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News